tv Capital News Today CSPAN February 5, 2013 11:00pm-2:00am EST
>> yes, they did. >> i was so busy taking notes. early and offering congratulations to john kerry. i wanted to ask about the end pakistani you see kerry moving and the secretary of state is going to have. "the wall street journal" ran out the piece talking about how at least the view in india is kerry tilted towards pakistan. what is your sense of the importance if any of kerry's? >> pair of vital importance to both countries and we appreciate very much the fact state department has been one of our best interlocutors through difficult times and we hope as we look towards better spaces, we craft policy together. senator kerry's very respected. he brings experience for both
the region and policy. while i have decided to take this opportunity to also appreciate the outgoing secretary of state, the inimitable mrs. clinton has been an ally and partner uncertainly viewed very well in pakistan as the most important and powerful diplomat representing the united states views abroad. we welcome john kerry because pakistan has john kerry as the architect -- one of the architects of the kerry lugar berman legislation, which has been instrumental in broad basing this relationship and anchoring it and we hope they longer and more sustainable multifaceted relationship. we also know it's not a relation
as well as political parties. we work and we hope to work with every senior policymaker in the united states as well as congress and of course senator kerry has emerged from those ranks. so we look forward to working with them and i don't think we need to speak to anyone. he has pretty much spelled his policy agenda and i'm sure he has a great deal to address as he takes this important and challenging time. >> one for me and i'm a loop around the table. as you know, foreign minister today talk of the council on foreign relations moderated by david sanger of "the new york times" of mother she said terms of the power in afghanistan that the united states is leaving without determining what you accomplish object is in chief at
the border with pakistan has become less well managed. you describe a very construct is, happy relationship. is our policy in terms of afghanistan one of the sore points? >> i think what we're looking at now is clearly a sense in pakistan that has the drive down approaches, there are worries of course about how responsible this exit will be we are of course invested in making and ensuring that the region remains a stable and peaceful as possible. i think it is perfectly easy to understand why there is a calendar of imminent anxiety attached to the straw down and these imminent anxieties are
informed by our counter with the united states in the relation to afghanistan 30 years ago and we still are living to tell the tale of the straightest they were left to deal with. it has shaped after danny society and brought in another culture of volatility, guns, narcotics that we are hosting the world -- we still continue to host arose largest population of refugees, which remains a forgotten story. the documented refugee are not integrated in pakistan. we welcome them with open arms, but i think pakistan is well-placed and certainly articulating these anxieties about many cool posts that we
should seek in terms of stabilizing that order. it is an important come along volatile, a border between the two countries and we recognized that there are capacity constraints on all sides, that we appreciate very much the capacity of constraints on our site also be understood as strategic simplicity be spread around the pakistan has done and executed in terms of joint policy goals over the last 10 to 11 years. i say this because there's a great deal of the lease before now, there has been many years that the public narratives here in pakistan not having done enough into combat joint goals,
which really relate to terrorism and we fail at being on track after having lasted 6000 civilian soldiers, after having my $78 billion in both economic opportunity, investment in infrastructure and counting and having many terrorist sanctuaries after we conduct expenses in human cost as well. operations on our side of the border. the terrorists but you will to move across the order was very little interdiction on the other side. we do not perceive it to be good sanctuaries. we understand it is a capacity problem, they cheat you know all
40 nations in afghanistan during the same job for 10, 11 years that we arrested you very quickly on the border. so there needs to be a wreck ocean of capacity constraints, which we've done all along and we appreciate the same be done for all of us. it's not an absence of commitment, to try close because pakistan remains firmly committed to fighting, combating extremism and manifestations because u.s. is not something we could walk away from. it's a clear and present danger to our society and way of life. and when you say what are the worries? one of the worries is that there may be security vacuums after the straw down because many of the timelines spoken of in terms
of transitions and sectarian of a possible negotiated peace are all right now timelines and we look at them with hope and we have been strenuous in moving all of our resources, clinical, to not make an otherwise to the task of whatever negotiated settlement the united states and afghanistan are seeking in this moment of challenging transition. >> termer cubby, david word, and emily jake. >> ambassador, thank you for being here. two questions. one, hamid karzai and david cameron had a meeting to spend a six-month deadline on tax of the
taliban. two ambition i pakistan was a political party functioning in society? and two, to think the footprint strategy is fun for the united states in afghanistan long-term? >> the first one is to speak to in terms of where they see the taliban up but i love all an integrated in the mainstream of society. they do have constitutional obligations they seem to uphold that we are also looking with the united states transitions and if ken estanislao. there is a timeline as well in an election to be held in afghanistan. so these are processes and political decisions they must make themselves. and when i say this, i do want
to point to the historic ship that pakistan is proactively making. our government has been clear, including all of our stakeholders, which includes the military that pakistan is going to strenuously support all efforts of stabilizing afghanistan and bringing peace to the region because that is the know our vital interests. we live right they are and it's stable and peaceful afghanistan is in the first interest of pakistan. having said that, when you say where that leaves the taliban and in what they do, when we assisted the reconciliation process as we have been proactively doing through court groups for a trilateral process at the working level in the highest levels of government,
then what we see as we put a shoulder, but iran has sued the process. we have no rule except any that will not be interfering in afghanistan. though not be leading any process they are. this is a sovereign process than that piece defined by them, let a bad and must be timelines by them. including advocating ways forward our roadmaps to stakeholders such as the united states in pakistan have been following. pakistan has been defined in public interactions at the council of afghanistan has recently in pakistan. so we are certainly hoping to keep the momentum of these talks
going because stabilization is again a waiter and portends and we have high-stakes because of obvious spillovers of violence in pakistan. so we'll be keeping as much momentum and applying as bachelor diplomatic resources we can to the task. but when they were new -- when the afghans ask us to move, that is the process we've been following. there can be no repeat of the 90s. there is a point to history one learns from it. so we are moving in that direction and we are hoping to build equity zip peace and responsible transfers of government and hope they can secure the peace they are seeking to build right now in
society. it's a tough process. it may be slow. it made the arduous, but it's an uphill task, but not entirely we hope to move data such as we can with them, but again it is their call, dear lead in the campy guarantors of anything. we are behind, as i said come entire diplomatic and political research to the table. >> wife of prince? >> the zürich and decisions that u.s. and united states are making together. i can only speak to a question about a footprint in pakistan and certainly a lighter footprint feher in terms of drum
strikes would be better. drug strikes are not seen as operationally good in pakistan. we see them as a direct violation of our sovereignty and also law. so yes, it may be a position that may have its uses, but believe me, we've been working together in the past as well to degrade and destroy and diminish al qaeda banks and i'm appreciative that senator kerry and ambassador olsons re/max that pakistan's operation to the status has been vital in doing so and why we move towards diminishing al qaeda ranks in our region, the time for drug
strikes is really over. [inaudible] i wonder if you can tell me about the progress she made with fat and also some of the challenges. >> i think that's a question very close to my heart not eisai secretary clint tends, we do appreciate your work she's done. it's an valuable and i think she is traveled many miles to reach out to women that opportunity as we would like women and girls everywhere to have. so that is a legacy that will in daughter and we in pakistan are committed to building a durable partnership with the united states on issues exactly such as
those. we have a young growth is epitomized in the struggle of children in pakistan to attain and achieve the same opportunities as children everywhere in the world and we hope to be able to bring women. we are defined in a scene female poverty and it's not going to happen overnight. do not discriminate an amazing leadership in pakistan camino women are in theaters have responsibility in many places in pakistan from the speaker the foreign minister to ambassadors and up and down the line and there is a critical of parliament that has brought, i would call, landmark legislation for enhancing women's right to support and protect the women in changing societies.
so while that is something the tent together, there's the business council that we are working on for mrs. clinton put together, to be kind of signed up to a site name nancy u.n. session late last year. i want to take the opportunity to tell you that when we are looking at the bottom of the pyramid, pakistan has for the first time put a safety net to the many people driven under the line of poverty. but that safety net is accessible to women, which gives them a direct access to income. this is 18% of the population already. this income support program is actually now being seen as a gold standard in many developing
countries, the world bank is assisting with transparency and poverty surveys. but they are driven -- it is a women driven program and it accrues only two women. so it empowers a woman household for disposable income, a decision-maker in the first unit of exercising power and i think all power is political. that's the household. moving onto this, we are providing as we document the women and the economy as well as all pakistani citizens in what is known as the first nic computerize card. use this card and you don't have to be literate to use this to access benefit, such as the first branch of health care based on these cards.
they access the income they can seek. they have assisted people and the natural disasters that took place in seeking a flood relief and disaster relief support and now they will be moving to health care benefits. this is as a long-term plan of course, but this is really the only way forward. women are at the center of development and poverty elimination at the heart of our core strategy. >> what about the challenges? >> as you know, women face challengers across the board, but i'm happy to say we report a higher number of decision-makers as well as a parliament that many leading economies and women
women -- that makes a huge difference to both mainstream women's challenging issues in the public domain and also flag and what is important, which is why we were able to bring what i call flagship legislation called the harassment bill, which i started and now there are public sector corporations and private companies that are actively signing up to follow the code of conduct. government entities are mandatory and these are the stories that don't reach. many people are dismissed in public and their corporations based on the size. we have media partnerships. people are putting advertisements, telling people
they can make their voices heard and not suffer silently. so from domestic violence to harassment in the work pace, these are challenges in terms of protections we need to offer them better, but the most important thing is mainstreaming them, economically and politically until women are in the forefront of these front lines. he will continue to have the creature's pockets but i'm sure it appears and power deficits all over the world. and i don't want to bring up the sisterhood of suffering in this, but certainly stands united and salvation women face a dual burden and the fact they work outside the home, but their work
is not considered a contribution to the mainstream economy. certainly pakistan work on the long. so that is why we are putting borel and herbal women at the bottom of the pier made at our development strategies. >> thank you for coming. i want to ask you about the drugs. so pakistan's position is international law under those guidelines a lot to ask, why did she choose them? has pakistan shot drums and if not, the reason i assess this because there's bob pakistan
publicly -- >> that may address this is most spokesperson do. they speak to what began in terms of the question and you do ask why -- you ask a question, which is a required complicity in this? let me assure you since we've been in government, there's no question of wink and nod. this is a parliamentary breadline that all government institutions have internalized this policy. i also say this as not just a policy that we say. this important because drugs are actually seeing is very negative
unfortunate video of the u.s. power and how the united states projects its power brought. every time there's a drone strike, you see it on 40 channels. we have a robust media and you see them on all of these channels but the u.s. flag and so, that in and of itself make life difficult for us as we build public consensus against the united states were, not ours. however, would address that challenge. it's also operationally as because it creates more potential terrorists on the
ground and militants undergrads have taken out. that's taken a high-value come in medium value target, then it's also creating probably an entire community of future recruits to a cause that we are seeking to train sympathy for in all these areas. instead it radicalize his people standing up against militants and terrorists, using a religion, for instead as a mobilizing force. i think that charles is an instrument have had some efficacy in terms of precision. it's like saying, you know, we can't allow u.s. f-16s to come in. we use our road to an anti-terror operations when we can, when we are able to move
the population and protect them. so you know, we don't see them as part of it at all. [inaudible] >> excuse me? [inaudible] >> you need to be a very big five on that committee will. but i think we are all in the same page now. members of the staff found where the future of this size. pakistan has to take ownership of absolutely all of them to be sustainable and be seen as legitimate in the eyes of ip hole. you know, there's been a lot of churn strikes next-door also. and in any case, you know the
whole al qaeda is pretty much through our cooperation and joint efforts pretty much degraded. that said the administration will agree to also. >> thank you very much. you talk about the process in afghanistan being led. president karzai presents a pakistan and united states in the roadmap of 2015. the roadmap substitutes pakistan of her green face-to-face talks between the afghan taliban and mr. karsay's government. it's been accepted by your government. i'd like to know how much progress your government has made in terms of her reasoning these talks.
and mr. karsay's government as part of that effort would like your government but the number two had, number two of iraq. with i.q. to square that with your assertion -- >> when was the last time you heard that? i would recheck that with your administration if i were you. >> the afghan defense minister presented that last week. >> i'm glad the defense minister has left a happy man. [inaudible] >> we don't discuss listened public forums, but it is not -- we have number one, he said something buddy substitution. no, we essay said have come through this whole process. we been asked to the process quite beta is forced to but then announced time table can be
financed to come very good. we do all we can as they asked for and have been doing that. we have been doing that in complete coordination to the corporate process we run. incidentally, that kept running, even when high-level talks were suspended between the pakistan and we did keep the process going. i think there is no substitution at all. >> we will do everything we can -- we will do everything we can in the timeline they are looking for her. [inaudible] >> absolutely, they are very
releases which we are cooperating my department went. the united states is still engaged in this process. we cannot that they are and guess the outcome. we can certainly do this the united states. they are making that according to their timeline. it has been a mandated body to do that. they have met in london as well. so we will move according to their suggestions. that is as far as i can speak to
this. >> we have about 20 minutes left. emily? >> go ahead. i wanted to follow up on this question. just for clarification. the prisoners that have been released in recent months. can you talk a little bit about what the topic is to make this decision. >> we have been engaged together. there is a reason why we are saying that it have to be done this way. they have to be engaged in how they take this forward.
we will move according to their chronology and their suggestions on us. >> i have a separate question on the coalition. we are at a point now where in terms of the reimbursement, they are still making sense. >> i understand. we have accounting times that we talk about. [inaudible] as you know, those have been clear. we do always have a difference between what we say is due. certainly, that is not the formula of the view.
i believe there is a discussion for forward movement on that. >> jamie? >> thank you. thank you, madam ambassador, for doing this. your predecessor said that there is not a convergence of interests to maintain an alliance. once we treat it like israel, basically the u.s. should cut off aid and that is the only way to this relationship can exist in the long run. also, in addition, have you seen the movie "zero dark thirty", and what are your impressions of that to . >> it is very zero and it is very dark. [laughter] >> you know, we are a democratic
are very careful. i am sure that you have noticed that this is the most underreported story in all of history. the we are dismantling an entire status entry values that stood between the two countries. i think that we are looking forward to a future the entire region of this and other opportunities and banks are opening up in each other's countries. and we are moving beyond --
process. one of the things that has kept us busy there is the appointment of building an election commission. it is clear to an appointed individual of the election commissioner. that playing field that is a level playing field that we are providing in this first historic election. all parties have agreed on us. you know, one of the first acts of this election commission with
>> [inaudible question] >> well, afghanistan is running pakistan right now. but the leaders certainly assist in the process -- at the end of the day, afghanistan is trouble. >> thank you. i just want to first of all talk to you about the basis of the question. i can get youtube clarify a little bit. the afghans and the americans have complained.
[inaudible] >> you said that when asked about this, you said when was the last time you heard this particular defense ministers argument? >> [inaudible] [talking over each other] >> since i was at the top the list, would you expect the solution to come from him? >> [inaudible] >> on the question of being deserting years ago, what would be pakistan thought
-- what would they have in the counterterrorism operation? [inaudible] >> when we are able to extrapolate, we will. but we have made our position very clear also. at all levels that we will be cooperating, but it has to be according to our own constitution and acceptable limits. what mission was best accomplished in preserving stability? >> pakistan has no aim.
smuggling the ammonium nitrate, which is an issue that was brought up. there is nothing close to a matching introduction capability on the other side of that border, which used to be part of that. now, the ratio is something close to a to one. we have over 800 and they have about 100. so this needs to be, you know, looked at. look at more seriously. these issues need to be looked at far more seriously. >> we have about five minutes left. we have howard and frankie as well to beat. they would like to speak.
>> [inaudible] [talking over each other] >> you know, that is what is really putting people in danger. just like we have those being extorted constantly. they are at a broad distance. that is the story. i can talk about where we need to go and what we need to accomplish together. if you just talk about cooperation with the united states, where we have come from, from 2009 until 2012 -- this is what pakistan has done alone. 37% talk about government
control in 2009. now we have about 86% in 2012. we are doing what we can to assist in the operational space for terrorists. it is hard to interject on our border. we have not seen the operation on the other side. we have not allowed operations on the other side. we are doing what we can with various resources. we'll begin was to -- it was part of a drawdown.it does haveg
this avoiding that -- we need to enhance pakistan's own counterterrorism capabilities. we have a certain amount of capacity. if you compare that, our defense budget is $5 billion for the whole year. you know, it is not apples and oranges. don't always lay out what this big global force could do. we are doing what we can, we will continue to do that responsibly. >> in regards to what you mentioned several times, by the way, thank you for doing this,
the notion of the drone being a red line. one country, if they cross that line, that is grounds for a breach were some kind of issue, certainly a breach in relations. we haven't seen that kind of a breach in the way that we did before. >> yes, of course, that was the killing of the soldiers on the border. it is part of everything to have our operations to have this kind
of issue. but i do have to say that there has to be a little bit more strategic sympathy for what pakistan has done. and what they continue to do in terms of this effort. it has been a very long haul for it has been a very long haul for us. we have committed to the joint effort. there was no suicide bombings impact in. now -- excuse me? >> [inaudible question] >> i have done this before. if we take that number --
>> they can say that you need to leave at least this particular number or that -- >> we are looking at supporting the negotiation. clearly this has not been an answer. the talking needs to start at an earlier stage. >> [inaudible question] we thank you so much. we appreciate your coming. >> i have really tried to do the best i can. >> i have been an editor for 20 years. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> excuse me? >> i have said what i had to. >> coming up on c-span2, house majority leader eric cantor to us as the republican agenda. members of the house progressive caucus present their alternative to that sequester, automatic spending cuts. in a discussion about the federal income tax at the urban institute. tomorrow morning, leon panetta will speak at georgetown university. the senate will confirm his successor. we will have live coverage of his speech at 9:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span2 and at
c-span.org. >> during the presidentand first ladies term in 1812, dolly madison was known as saving special artifacts from the white house. on presidents' day, c-span presents first ladies. influence and image. 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> today, eric cantor discuss the republican party's policy agenda. focusing on how their proposals affect families. among the issues, immigration, education, and taxes. this is 45 minutes.
>> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i am the president of the american enterprise institute and i am pleased to welcome eric cantor today. it is an important policy speech entitled making life work. now, an ordinary introduction of his political career and rise to majority leader and talk about his new legislative accomplishment, his career, as most of you know, is not a collection of accomplishment, but a long-term effort to make it better, or country for all americans. here is someone who pauses to remember the why of public policy, valuing justice for all, protecting the vulnerable, and fighting against class divisions in american life. he knows that it leads to a
happy and more prosperous life for more people. he cares about those who are being left behind, people that are looking for work and cannot find it. people who raised barriers of starting business and building another life. eric cantor knows that policy analysis as an american or someone who wants to become an american, is very important. here is the reason that i admire him the most. and years that i have gone to know him and become his friend. he fights for everyone. whether they are going to vote for him or not. >> arthur, thank you so much. it is great to be here.
i will tell you that i am such an admirer of what you do. you have done so much on conservative policy and how it actually helps people. the commitment in this thing has only begun to reap rewards. thank you very much for hosting us today and for helping make a better life for all americans. >> there is no greater moral imperative than to reduce the amount of debt that is facing us, our children, and theirs. the house republican majority
stands ready for the president and his party to join us and actually tackle the big problems facing this country. it is based on a shared vision of health and happiness and prosperity. for more americans and their families. and to restrain washington from interfering in those pursuits. health care and innovation and job growth are the conservative principles of job growth. trust and family and accountability in government.
our goal is to ensure that every american has a fair shot to earn success and achieve their dream. it is my hope that i can stand before you to years from now and report to you that found within us the ability to set differences aside in order to provide relief. so many millions of americans just want their lives to work again. children are largely confined to the lives of their parents. but not here. here, we have seen the fun of the shoe man become the president of the united states. we have seen a daughter of a poor and single mother development company that turned into her being the owner of a tv
network. in america, the grandson of poor immigrants fled russia and that sun became the majority of the leader of the house of representatives. that is what the house of representatives and america is about. in north carolina, two mechanics , the wright brothers, gave us the gift of flight. they flew 18 feet in the air at that time, but they performed a miracle. as a result, only 66 years later, this country put a man on the moon and brought him back. that is who we are. we can do an enormous amount of great things. the wright brothers actually inspired were inspired by their father who gave them a toy helicopter.
he never wanted his sons, orville and wilbur to fly after the original flight, no one gave them the permission to fighter jet. the only time they ever did, later that day, he took his 82-year-old father up into the air. rising 350 feet at that time. while milton shouted, go higher, higher. i think it is a great testament to what our country is about. in america, we do have higher expectations for our nation, just like milton had higher expectations for his time. believing that we could be the best hope to mant we could be te best hope to mankind. that hope lies in the generation of immigrants who risked everything to endure a tough
journey and come to our shores. the driving motivation for the millions of immigrants by lady liberty in new york harbor, because of the hope and the high expectations, determination saw them through. every generation sends has had it better up until now. many fear that their children will not have it better than none. our goal has to be to eliminate what grips our nations families and restore their hope and confidence so that they, the parents, can see a better
these are all real concerns. fearful that life is not going to work out the way that they hoped to during the last several years, it was a stagnant economy. too many mothers and fathers have had to come home and walk into the kitchen and tell their families they didn't have a job anymore. now, how is a family like that supposed to wait for a rainy day when it got tough to make it through the next month. these are the families that should be our focus. they are desperate to have this hope restored. making reality an opportunity for them. it will come if we provide a path forward. give them the tools to take
advantage of this economy. we need to see businesses and startups created so there can be more jobs and opportunities for kids in them. just like parents, washington has got to start shoving care for the generations ahead. while leaving the parenting intact. we need to ensure that our children are safe and healthy and able to breach their dreams. opportunity and belief in tomorrow starts with an education system at work. in 1822, thomas jefferson wrote that i look to the diffusion of light and education is the resource to be relied upon for the condition promoting the virtue and advancing the happiness of man.
with an eye towards his vision since 1965 from the federal government has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into improving schools, especially in low income areas. frankly, the results do not match the investment. joining us here today is joseph kelly and his family. now, joseph is a road that in his family. by the fifth grade, his son was three subjects behind. this will put them in a special education class. joseph would sit in on the classes in order to help his son. it was met with hostility by school administrators and even had to obtain a court order so that he could have a tutor.
violence was so prevalent that there were eight officers patrolling on a daily basis. he dedicated himself to making sure that his son and his three sisters could have access to a school with a safe environment in which to learn. within two years at a private school, he caught up with his classmates and he is now a student in college. his sisters, who are here with us today as well, they are attending a preparatory school in there on a similar path.
i visited the school yesterday, and it is amazing. it is making a real difference in the lives of kids. without this help could possibly be lost. right now they have great teachers and small class sizes and a mission that says that every child has to succeed. no one should deny them this opportunity. [applause] >> joseph kelly, nor any parent should have to wait for failed education and failed school systems to get their act together. throughout the country, there are promising signs that we can bring schools and parents together to improve our education system.
the administrators, teachers, the more money it receives from a low incomes who then there are incentives for reasons to differentiate themselves, the schools. imagine if we tried to move in this direction with federal funding. while the money we currently spends follows individual children. students, including those with special needs, would be able to access a shot at having a successful life in earning their success in achieving their dream. they would not just be subjected to the failing school.
one of our priorities this year is to move heaven and earth to fix our education system. when those children graduate from high school, we must explain the choices and guide their options. the average cost of college was $8000 a year 20 years ago. this year, it is over $20,000. over 60% graduate within six years. clearly, something is broken. according to president obama and his former jobs council, by 2012
-- excuse me, 2020, there is persistent demand of jobs in the health care sector alone. there are not enough applicants to fill the jobs in the booming natural gas industry. suppose colleges provided prospective students with reliable information on the potential earnings. what if parents had access to the clear and understandable breakdown to academic studies and amenities. students would have a better chance of graduating within four years and getting a job. helping students realize opportunity and a career while keeping tuition costs makes common
sense the senators have a plan that addresses this goal. i am working with the chairman and pursuing legislative action in the house. in the courts of this congress, we would like to work to reform our student aid process to give students a financial aid option to finish studies sooner. including for-profit schools. and it will make the cost more transparent to parents and students in the millions of taxpayers who helped pay some of the bills. we owed to them. a good education leads to more innovation. throughout our history, american colleges and universities have served as a cornerstone for the world's innovation. they are a big part of why the
u.s. remains the destination for the world's best and brightest. investment in education leads to innovation, which leads to more opportunity and jobs for all. the investment we make is not yielding the maximum return. each year, colleges and universities, a graduate with a masters or phd, many are forced to leave the country because there are not enough visas that permit them to stay. one girl is with us today. she is earning her master's in applied sciences. originally from china, she has been in the united states for five years, helping in the
engineering department. if you talk to her, you will see that she is pretty smart. she would like to stay here. she would like to invest her talents in america and maybe even start her own company. but she has seen too many of her friends with advanced degrees have to go home, despite sharing some of her aspirations of wanting to become part of this country. last year the house passed the bipartisan stem jobs act. we will hope the senate will join us this time. i look forward to feeling of realizing her dreams in our country. and our country reaping the rewards of her hard work and talent. whether it is college, the cost of day daycare, making life work for more families means reducing the economic insecurities plaguing so many working moms and dads.
over the last 20 years, the world has changed. he it used to be that one could make a career in working for this company. the average worker stays at his or her job for about four years. median income in 2010 was about the same as it was in 1997. exports point out that it ignores the many families are getting more benefits, like health care from their employers. try explaining that. the rising health care costs and take-home pay, and saying that it is justified -- that is little consolation. because her grocery bills are still higher. her kids still have needs that are more expensive. the rent is out. now she is trying to give back. i think all of us know the
getting by is not the american dream. as job markets change, more skills and education are needed. fellow job training programs ought to make it easier for americans who are out of work or changing their career. yesterday, the federal government had attacks were the of 47 different overarching programs that are not dynamic or innovative enough to meet the needs of potential employees. we can fix this, and we will, if we can muster the support to do so. you know there is hardly enough time to be at home with kids if you are a working parent. many parents can't afford to leave work for even half a day to attend a field trip or to go to a parent teacher conference.
they have the flexibility to earning flexible time, so perhaps they can get off and join their kids on school activities. the same privilege is denied. all of those employees in the private sector, those who are hourly wage, there is a police officer at home in my district. she is working a tough job with long hours. she is a local government employee, and is permitted to work extra hours and save up for a school event.
just imagine that we simply gave this opportunity to employees and employers. it is helping make life work for more families. another step is taxes. there's a lot of taxes. for most families, tax preparation is horrid and time-consuming. this time of year, especially. think about it, think what they are going through. is it more beneficial to file jointly or as a married couple or separately? is gas mileage deductible, or
are you forgetting something that the irs will give you credit for? in 1935, the form was accompanied by a two-page instruction book. today, taxpayers have to wade through over 100 total pages of instructions. distilling out w-4, you really shouldn't need a worksheet to see how many dependents that you have. the chairman and his committee are already underway in their efforts to rewrite the nation's tax laws. as an education policy, health care and all that, tax reform should reflect the priority of working families in the future they are trying to shape for their children. if nothing else, we must stop putting special interests ahead of our working families
interest. loopholes and gimmicks, benefiting those who have figured out how to work the system in washington. they are no more dispensable than irresponsible spending that we have been doing for decades. working families should come first. everyone agrees this tax code would give all of us more time. in our attempt to make the tax code simpler, we must demonstrate support for young parents who invest in having kids and raising a family. after all, they are america's most valued investment. in 1997, the republican congress created this tax credit to ease the burden of families raising children. a policy helped limit the size of government and resulted in fewer americans looking to the
government for support. leading up to april 15, families are besieged by concerned -- concerns of health care. there is no doubt that our current system is too complex and too costly. president obama's health care law resulted in higher premiums and has made access to quality health care and innovation tougher. if we want to reverse this trend, we should start by choosing to repeal the new taxes that are increasing the cost of health care and health insurance, like the medical device tax. aaron czajkowski has been one that's been so many years in
baltimore. she treats patients suffering from crippling neck and back pain. over time, she discovered that she suffered from the very condition that she treats. she went in for surgery and god were she got her hip replaced. thankfully she's on the mend. obamacare makes it hard for those research innovation in the united states and patients like this woman to get the care that they need. obamacare unnecessarily raises the cost of health care. even those who have pre-existing
conditions could get the coverage they need without a trillion dollar government program costing all of us more. that is only the tip of the iceberg when we talk about health care reform. many families like mine are dealing with the challenges presented by aging and very sick parents. they rely on medicare for relief. the government and medicare have not kept pace. medicaid is not doing any better. collectively, states are spending more on medicaid than they do on k-12 education.
the states don't have the flexibility to innovate to provide better care. as a result, in many cases, patients have been swallowed up by the system and have become an afterthought. these programs are broken. many patients are going without proper care. that is not fair to the people in and the families who depend on these programs. we have to fix them. we can modernize medicare so that it isn't so constipated for seniors or health care providers. making it easier for them to get the care that they need in a cost effective manner. between part eight, the hospital program, and the doctor's services. we can create reasonable and predictable levels of out-of-pocket expenses without forcing seniors to rely on medigap plans. seniors who choose to receive health care treatments with a group of doctors and hospitals working together to control the costs. they should share in some of the savings would lower medicare
premiums. this is cost effective and good for seniors. we can provide states more flexibility with respect to medicaid. it will allow them to provide better care for low income families in a way that ultimately bring down cost. options for states should include streamlining the process for determining eligibility and allowing them to offer health care coverage through patient directive health care and a flexible benefit program. we must make it faster and simpler for states to gain approval to modify the medicaid program. long-term, controlling health care costs will require smarter federal investment for medical research. many of these life-saving treatments are a result of an initial federal investment. much of it is spent on cancer research and other grave
illnesses. one of the most courageous people that i know is a young girl named cady katie from richmond, virginia. katie is with us and i have known her for many years. katie was diagnosed with cancer just after one years old. that is any parent's nightmare. katie and her family went through a tremendous struggle trying to deal with this tumor that was discussed and discovered. the family went to saint jude and had successful radiation treatment. she is doing well today. but she is still worried about her condition and the family will soon return to memphis as she often does to make sure that she's going to stay on this path
to having her life work again. [applause] she has the brightest smile of anyone that i know. it is an inspiration. prayers for katie's recovery help, but we also have to pray that the scientists and researchers that they find, so the children are not robbed of a healthy life. there is an appropriate role and a necessary the necessary role for the federal government to ensure funding for basic amount of medical research. doing all we can to facilitate
than 11 million people here illegally, many of whom have become part of the fabric of our country. daily kos have families and dreams. while we're a nation that allows anyone to start a new, we are also nation of laws and that is what exactly the issue of immigration reform so difficult. in looking to solve solve the problem soon, we've got to balance respect for the rule of law and for this we need to enter this country illegally with care for the people and families, most of whom just want to make a better life and contribute to america. a good base to start is with the kids. one of the great founding principles of our country was children would not be punished for mistakes of their parents. it is time to provide an opportunity for legal residency citizenship, for this but this
country is children and who know no other home. i'm pleased that many of my colleagues in both chambers of commerce on those sites as they have begun work in good faith to address these issues i am pleased to make border security, and that verification and a guestworker program and media priorities. it's the right thing to do for our families, security and economy. there's some i would rather avoid fixing the problem in order to save this as a political issue. i reject this notion. caller present to the east was a bipartisan solution rather than encourage the common political divisions of the past. a sonnet by emma lazarus, the new clauses and was pleased the statue of liberty in the keynote
three. he read or see worse than say kate shaw's and a mighty woman with a torch from the beacon hand glows worldwide welcome. the message should sound familiar to most of us. the image of the statue of liberty at the negative stories of our immigrant past service a humbler reminder of who we are as a country. it's the reason i'm able to stand before you today. like so many generations in eastern europe at the turn of the last century, maker of parents but a vicious anti-semitic pogroms of the bars of pressure to come to america. widowed at a young age, my grandmother raised her two sons in a tiny apartment a topic or shuster that she and my grandfather had a downtown
richmond. with little about her fate and hope for a better tomorrow, my grandma worked seven days a week to ensure my dad and my uncle could realize the promise of this great country. and today, my children and i stand as proof of the possibility to what may seem to hurt them like an impossible train. to uphold this legacy that those who come before us will need to make choices in a divided government come in these choices are often touted. we have the house majority remain committed to making mr. choices in stand ready to lead with this president. higher milton wright shouted from the air, higher. making life work from our working people and all who want to work is the best way to the
future of higher growth and more opportunity. thank you very much. carbonic [applause] questions? yes, sir. >> are the stats today going to be incorporated in legislation hours is the beginning of finally seeing a republican candidate? >> no, it's not the latter. it was say we do intend to follow up policy proposals in legislation, working with committees to move forward on many issues. [inaudible]
>> i've not looked at the details about the senate has put out. i will say that i look to admire to replace work of senator ruby has done in the nuts. think we can work turnkey solution and do so in quick fashion. >> today the government is very inefficient and large amounts of money had been wasted cured however, congress and newspapers, the focus is cutting budgets and reducing spending. it is their intent to the focus on outcomes unmaking reduction expenses a consequence of better outcomes and more efficiency or just cut money out of the deficiency. >> obviously, we ought to be smart about your taxpayer dollars are being spent and my
message today is to make sure we explain and demonstrate how our proposed those benefit people. it's about making life work again for more people. i think so many americans feel disenfranchised. they don't understand why washington can't be of help to them and we put policies on the table and we will go forward with this agenda with the conservative emphasis on individual effort, opportunity comes self-reliance an opportunity for more people. that's what it's about enriching show and demonstrate to the ice better and my heart began through these proposals. >> you spoke of health care costs. the thing is we have the most expensive health care in the
world. is there any room for america to move a gp may be number two in the road rather than number one. >> certainly, we all know the system is too costly and complicated underrepresent reformed are aimed at reducing costs to access to care. we talk about the impact of the latest flood, the president's health care love the negatively in fact many patients because now that texas put into place. it's got to increase ability for lower costs and ready to make difficult choices as i indicated when it comes to medicare system , medicaid system to affect those outcomes. everything for the future were never going to get a handle long term unless go about making sure
investment there may in basic medical research that we can see straight reset desperately need good >> good afternoon, mr. leader. washington opportunity scholarship program here. but things do you think republicans in congress can do to get more people to pursue careers in math, science, engineering, stem cell that there seemed to be so many opportunities? >> is obviously not of me. when i spoke of college is angry that we would like to see them provide clear and understandable information to parents when they're trying to make the decision not to put a lot of money to work for kids education or if they've got to borrow money to do that, to make it so they know what the return will be. that's why it's important to know this job opening concert
arias and colleges are not doing their job and radiant students for the workforce today. that's what they think we've got to handle is to demonstrate this is where you're headed and obviously something's not right their set any job openings of a contemplated the way plane at the way they are. >> thank you, mr. leader for being here today. i'm robert massey. a bit to pick up the example on the top of your remarks with the rating system and school system. as you know entitled one we currently have a number winning formula and how we distribute resources to the population. we have 12 million kids in rural america and they don't need a lot of those thresholds. we spend less investing in this young people than in urban areas. we don't have rural versus
urban, but what would she richie junior plan? >> related issues to train in what you're talking about. the weighted issue is about trying to get her friend to special needs children in low income, to set the incentives rate for schools. adobe incentives for school to differentiate themselves. if you talk to joseph kelley, his kid and kid from the front would've been destined to score that had eight d.c. police officers every single day patrolling. there's no way you can expect these young people to have an opportunity to learn. it really should be that these schools have an incentive to go after them keep you for kids, not the other way around. there's a lot of controversy on this in terms of units in the
rats. were talking about the lives of these kids. the proposals were going to be about are aimed directly at that. vivisect joseph kelley, family in rural areas the same outcome. >> republican senators and house members about what's most important for republicans as they go forward. for the average american to figure out what the party is headed after the election, who really speaks for the republican party at this point? >> at a different little bit. the average american is not thinking to wonder about where the republican party is. they think how to make their life where college is exactly what we talk about here today. just as kerry cares about taking
care of his kids. she doesn't care what the republican party is fishy tears that having the ability to help all american, republican, democrat or independent have a better life. they don't care about what republicans are advocating here. they want results and the point of my talk today is to save the republicans in the house are dedicated to those ends. >> can you see a few more words about what she sees as the proper role in education? understood that democrats want socialized education programs. don't republicans and conservatives see education as a state and local function? >> is the parent of three kids, all of whom went to public
schools, two in college and one of the workforce, education starts with parents. they know what's best. joseph kelley does its best and we have to set up a system where brainpower. to do what is best for kids. as you know, proponents of education monies by fire goes to the schools of the state level and from the numbers i am familiar with, federal government provides one to $2000 to his every student in this country for talking with a mix between and federal. i'm talking about trying to rearrange redirect flow of funds and allow it to be the parents and students are put back in the drivers seat, not some failing school system will cause the loss of a generation. thank you all very much. [applause]
>> the house judiciary committee that the immigration today. julian castro talked about the subject. here's part of his testimony. >> i come to you today as an american, optimist, grandsons oo an immigrant orphan from mexico is on opportunity and greatrandn country and its merited nation's largest city, a
community looks at the texas and america of tomorrow.ity immigration for all of us is a more than a political issue. it's who we are as americans. from plymouth rock to ellis island and galveston, texas, to the sandy shores of florida, immigrants have made or is the greatest country in the world. today, however, our immigration system is badly broken. but there is hope. this hearing, and more important thisrtisan legislation that i believe can be enacted becauseie of it shows we are on the cusp e of real progress. the president and a growing the pr for maker so they defamer for whates americans support, comprehensive, commonsense reform. we messed up these three things
further strengthen border do security, streamline the legal immigration process so companier get the work they need in this e 21st century global economy and create a path to citizenship to bring the estimated 11 citi undocumented immigrant in this country out ofth the shadows and into the full life of the of th american dream. an texas, we know firsthand the administration is the purpose or the ground along the border than any other time in our history be which has led to an president or success in removing dangerous h individuals from the records.ges democrats and republicans agreer to work to ensure america's safety andds security is ongoing and should be a part of any future legislative agenda. the reform you have on the table are also profamily andso pro-business. outdated visa allocations separate husbands and wives, mothers a and children and
brothers and sisters for years and sometimes decades make nond sense. whileics no sense that some employers exploit employees, employers choose to throw out the rule of law and exploit employees, others companies are handcuffed by rigid employment ceilings and burdensome regulations. every year as competition increases across the globe, american companies throw up their hands and watch engineers, nurses and entrepreneurs who are trained in american universities, leave in frustration only to invent new products, heal the sick and innovate in other countries. what americans deserve is a system that works, a system that's efficient, that's accountable. that in our nation's best
interest, puts the undocumented immigrants already here on a road to earn citizenship. those immigrants take on many faces from virginia to north carolina to utah. le in san antonio, those faces include students like benita. she was brought to this country as a child from mexico. she learned english, played by the rules and achieved astounding academic success. even becoming a valedictorian of my alma mater thomas jefferson high school in san antonio. she was a national merit scholar and benita earned a bachelor's degree by the time she was 20 years old. by any measure, she is an american success story. under current immigration law she is in limbo. america is her home in every single sense of the word except under our broken immigration
system. since the signing of the declaration of independence, america has distinguished itself as the land of opportunity, the place where the human spirit is free to reach its full potential. in this 21st century global economy, we need benita and immigrants like her to be competitive. but we all know that as one generation of americans has passed on to the next this great nation has drawn tremendous strength from immigrants, whether they came from germany or italy or india or mexico. a hearing is a great start, but a hearing is not enough. let's rise above the political fray, let's once again show that no challenge is
>> if you go to most american history textbooks, but i will sneak you a bet it's either the tax books you had in high school, take me up on my back, but i bet with using your american history textbooks in high school, if you go to the index, you will find no mention a few jacks. they further bet is if you go to your biology books in high school, you would find no mention of the word eugenics. i just looked at the biology book is signed by courses here for intro bio courses at montana state university. great textbooks, but i didn't see any mention of eugenics. access is because we no longer believed in eugenics, we don't have to think about it. it's as if we historians because we no eugenics were so awful, we can somehow pretend it wasn't part of american culture.
>> automatic spending cuts to lead by congress in september scheduled to take effect next month. on the next "washington journal," we'll talk about cuts in proposals for increasing tax revenue change in entitlement programs such as medicare and social security. >> unless congress acts before march 1st, spending cuts caused sequestration will have been. members of the progressive caucus held a conference to introduce alternative is to die
in higher taxes and cuts and military spending to avoid spending cut in the budget. this briefing is a half an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, and keith ellison, cochair with raul grijalva and members of the progressives group than those of us assembled here by looking at this fiscal situation our country is facing and we have a vision of how our country should go forward that includes balance, fairness and equality. the very same $1.7 trillion in cut. vital programs that affect everyone from teachers to education programs have ulcers of things that improve the lives of americans.
we believe there should at least be equal amounts of revenues to generate. we come together to support the balancing act, which we take the 1.1 trillion in cuts that have been made and the cinematic revenue in order to do with fiscal issues. and what going to do with the real problem, which is good, livable wage jobs and put 300 unit that so we can improve school buildings and help americans of all kinds. so with that, let me ask my cochair, sub one, to come forward and talk more about the balancing. >> thank you, keith. very briefly, were headed tersely perfect storm of sequestration in the debt ceiling decision, which
shouldn't really be a decision. all you've been hearing for the majority in the house from republicans in the senate is austerity, cuts and avoided the whole discussion of the fact that attitude and philosophy is only going to worsen the economy. if sequestration goes through that's about 660,000 jobs lost the first year in the balancing act is about creating revenue. creating revenue from sources that should be on the table that are being discussed on the table. the balancing act is a bad investment in this term with jobs, education, r&d, things we need to grow and sustain the recovery we are on. so it's an investment in this term and we recognize the deficit is an issue of our
long-term than the balancing act repealing sequestration creates in this country an opportunity to continue to recover and stabilize our economy, advice and thanks for the future and put on the table of revenue that is not data needs to be part of the revenue generation in order to do with the deficit issue still needed for recovery. thank you very much. >> thank you. i'm so happy to be here with the progressive caucus, talking about a sensible alternative. here are the facts. full implementation of the sequesters about 2.4 million jobs, both in the public and private sector. the congressional budget office has said sequestration would
reduce economic growth by 1.25% this year. so there's not sequestration is going to be replaced it isn't replaced with a even worse. the president has signed into live to fight four chile dollars in deficit reduction and three quarters comes from spending cuts. spending cuts have a real impact. it's time we take off the shade and much of the people behind the cuts made. $600 million of cuts in community health centers. $500 million in cuts to the women, infants and children nutrition program. that's talking about taking food out of the mouths of babies. $1.6 billion in cuts to environmental programs and energy assistance is very cool in chicago 295 night dollars and
cut in policing services. the new municipalities talk about the layouts that have already occurred. is canceling jobs are lost or were created and services are cut to families and smart investments were made. republicans insist on deficit reduction needs to come from even more severe cut, including social security, medicare and medicaid benefits. the fourth class of america are people other 65 years of age with $20,000 a year. the people is to go after them. but my colleagues and i are offering today is a smarter alternative to post-tax loopholes for individuals and corporations can cut through
military waste and create a million new jobs said testing infrastructure and keeping teachers in the classroom. what the balancing act as a salve for a long term deficit reduction in a fair and balanced way. in addition to smart targeted spending cuts, and raising revenue, we need to put people back to worse. growth is the third in the south that they could deficit reduction. that job creation, restored to full potential will be extremely if not impossibly difficult. assorted measures only in greece are deficit problem while creating jobs will help bring down the deficit by decreasing reliance on teaching net programs, increasing taxpayers in every debt to gdp ratio. job loss under sequestration would include 16,000 school teachers and aides and 20,000
head start teachers. as the american public that's what they mean by cats. we need to create education jobs by investing in teachers, modernizes goals in the first to create one in 300,000 jobs. these ideas they offered a bill in 2011 and were ultimately included in the american jobs that come which never even got a vote in the house. modernizing schools and the probing of the structure from which the balancing act we do other jobs or communities need and those are the shops are economy needs. the legislation pays for investments by including smart military cut the number for the discussion, really no discussion we'll streamliner military to meet 21st century threats.
raising revenue from those who can afford to pay more, making targeted military cut, not a little at first restorer the balance deficit reduction, but those are priorities that the american people keep saying they want. the bottom line is the balancing act is a much smarter way to go. thank you. >> thank you very much. that may think mr. ellison and mr. grijalva are outstanding and consistent leadership for a commonsense approach to solving our nation's deficit and more for my economic growth creating jobs. i've often said budgets are moral documents that reflect our values and priorities. today's legislation really reflects diving people over
weapons programs and prioritize a long-term job creation of a shortsighted to education and infrastructure. the progressive cost test scores concluded smart reform to the pentagon's from which we almost the largest federal agency enlaces billions of dollars every year to waste, fraud and abuse. many colleagues recognize the serious land to address the deficit to go forward without significant pentagon cuts on the table. the balance targets $270 billion in wasteful pentagon spent in an reinvests others in her teachers, rose and future. it's important to know these cuts will not harm or undermine our national security. only the race will come
excessive input is spending his targeted. i'm especially pleased to see this bill include some personal language to audit the pentagon. measures have increased transparency and accountability with the pentagon budget and get us on a fair and balanced road to fiscal sustainability. oftentimes colleagues don't realize the pentagon has not been knotted it, cannot be audited and we needed out of date. i'm glad we are calling for an audit of the pentagon. i love richard a bipartisan bill to audit the pentagon as a stand-alone effort to keep wasteful spending in check. the bottom line is to reevaluate the pentagon budget and scrutinize each item. there's a reason to continue billing some outdated cold war era weapons programs. i'm proud to stand with my
colleagues today in putting forward the balancing act, which is a common sense approach to reducing our long-term deficit and creating an economy that works for all in a fair and balanced way. thank you again. >> we have jim make term that -- [inaudible] >> thank you. then they start rethinking our cochairs. the catastrophic results of sequestration was attending a long-term balance between cuts and revenues. the simple truth is kids and seniors and small businesses oteri, sequestration is a disaster. it would be devastating to our economy and we eliminate thousands of critical jobs in the recession. it makes about a million jobs. there's two problems of the sequestered. gemma to some of them. cuts to children's food,
everything useful and essential. cuts across the board, weather forecast to air traffic troll. you name it. here are the specs drews, everything the government does the lc catastrophes. second of all, our economic roses between two and 2.5% a year. cbs has the sequestered cut economic growth by one and a quarter%. that would cost us almost a million jobs. at a time when we see the result of this stupidity inherent, if you grasp economic growth, it's
very interesting. unemployment is going up and rather going down until 2007 state separate in the united states and europe because of the recession from mr.'s coming down at a slow pace. until 2010. in 2010, unemployment keeps going down, but europeans go way up as they get their equivalent sequestration. they adapted austerity budgets and cut the spending. no one ever talks about this for some reason. we've cut the budget deficit in 2010.1% of gdp. in 21207.1%. we cut the fastest reduction in deficit since demobilization. frankly it's too fast. we do not have a spending problem contrary to its year for republicans. spending is going down except
for feed stands at a point that could turn the recession and unemployment is down, unemployment insurance spending will come down. word is a 19 -- 2007, that by itself gets the employment to reduce the budget deficit by 40%. our priority had to be economic growth and that's what this is designed to do. the sequestration would take almost each running out of the economy are not of work. thrust into a double dip recession are the same policy digit year. maintain your spending of all,
but kutcher deficits by increasing taxes on the very rich are not paying attention. segments of the tax loopholes, getting rid of tax loopholes that permit investment and jobs abroad, why should the government and taxpayer subsidized abroad? let's give it if this tax loopholes. let's invest my money and transportation and infrastructure that will generate another million jobs. a million jobs you can generate, a million jobs who would destroy sequestration. it will reduce the deficit to economic growth will not destroy the economy, which is airheaded other race. >> thank you. it's good to be here with my colleagues to talk about a decent way to do with the problems of this country.
republicans pulled over spending. they found it to be an effective word. if you listen, every sixth word is spending. the problem is not spent name because the republicans don't mind spending on useless wars for tax giveaways or programs they refuse to raise the revenue for. they just don't like anything that helps people enchanter he talked talked about the progress that will be cut. what is really necessary is to look at revenue. revenue comes from people working and paying taxes. when you have as many people unemployed is this country, the revenue goes down. if you want to do with revenue, you do not produce jobs.
the stupidest thing in the whole list is cutting the national institutes of health. the research done their strife in a huge industry. the medical industrial complex that is where reraise lots of money. you're going to have this track to become a third world country. it be done in europe or singapore but are still investing. the other place you get revenues from a fairer tax code, one that hasn't been gained. it's the list is as long as i have come to let me give you couple. hedge fund managers play games with carried interest. they make billions of dollars and they don't pay taxes as much as a secretary working in the
assay office. there are estate taxes that absolutely we have given away the estate tax. now this is put in by republicans back in the early mac team hundreds because it's fair. people get back to the country that made this possible to live so well. you can take care of your kids. take your passing on businesses, but they are to be returned to the country for further investment in this wonderful country that we really are. another manipulation is the escort taxation. people decide how can i get out of paying taxes altogether? pachinko four-man escort and then they don't pay taxes necessary. we can close tax loopholes by investing this job celebrates
the revenue. today's news that the right has deficit is down 1.43 years ago and 1.1 and now around $850 billion. it is coming down because the unemployment is dropping the people are going back to work. it will not happen if we make these insane coyote that if you cut across the board you don't know which are cutting. that is the real problem with sequestered. there's no thinking whatsoever. it's a mindless whacking away at so if the government is spending money, everything would be perfect. that's clearly not true this is necessary to invest both in human beings and infrastructure. we are going to do it in the balancing act is a good way to get it done.
>> sequestration was never intended to be good fiscal policy and was never intended to be policy. if these cuts take effect, the american people would truly be harmed by the representative sent to your to serve them. that is unacceptable. we need to reduce the long-term deficit, to each doing a balanced way. there's nothing balanced about across-the-board reductions to come into every aspect of the federal government. schools, health programs, research and development. under sequestration, none of these are safe. the balancing act is proof positive that there is a better way to address her dad without posing the american people and his common sense and simple. balanced-budget kazbek was to close in the polls. creative or 1 million new jobs
by investing in infrastructure and teachers. pay for that paper again our military budget under control and getting rid of giveaways to corporations that do not need them. consider balancing looks on the back of the poor, they still balance his budget cuts or tax increases so everyone gets a little, but no one has to give a lot. the balancing act is a solution to budget cuts that never made sense to begin with. as a second sequestration was never intended to have been, summits have developed a knack today. >> we now have time for questions if anyone has any. we've got some pretty sure people right here. [inaudible] [laughter] >> in any event, i'll go through
specifically which you would see in the revenues. give us a concrete areas on taxes, fees, tax code and what that sick. >> the revenues they generate are loopholes in an example of some of them include teams like fossil fuel industry. we close loopholes create significant savings. [inaudible] >> 94 billion. the close that loophole. yachts of those things come as loopholes. so those are the basic
loopholes. >> a 20 percentage limitation and inclusions with $482 billion. 17 billion, just send you from the 4 billion goes international tax loopholes, 161 million for the richest corporations making money. 94 billion, the income the post- 1 billion stock options supposed 25 billion. estate tax about 25 william. reduce deductions 25%, $70 billion. that's a tax reform.
[inaudible] >> of democrats for attacking the gas and oil companies and things that god. how do you respond? >> if we don't ask the wealthiest americans to help, we can get to a solution. so senator mcconnell is saying if we don't ask for revenue for the wealthiest americans and companies making record profits, we can get to a solution. that's ridiculous. the only way to get to a fair solution process people get the post and giveaways are luxury items to give a little bit of that fact. >> remember the republicans throughout the campaign last year so that's close tax loopholes so the revenues show. these tax loopholes don't serve
any function. they don't help the economy because we need money to close the deficit and finance investments to improve the economy. what he is saying is they must reduce it to save by cutting spending by things the american people need or if he's talking sequestration, but they would reduce the sequestration of medicare and social security called entitlement reform and that's what they mean. they're saying don't take things americans need. take useless tax loopholes and don't reduce the amount of money in the economy by reducing spending beyond $2.2 trillion in spending. to do that is to probably caused a million jobs in for good the
investment another million jobs. the cbo said a few sequestration in effect or if you did at across-the-board cuts, but deliver lectures and cut, that amount of cars would reduce in my macros in half and we don't do that. >> i would say mitch mcconnell is a bully because he's more than willing to talk about people over 65 years old -- actually 67, people on medicare over 65 to pay more, wait longer and asking us not to talk about people who have yacht and diamond and furs. really? s. with the american people are saying what they fear most about the fiscal class from the
sequestration and what will happen if medicare and social security is going to be cut and that's the kind of thing mitch mcconnell is not than willing to do it wants us to be quiet about the wealthiest americans. the majority of people think the best to solve our problem is to ask the wealthiest americans to pay more in their right. [inaudible] >> the reason many up here for the sector of the last time. it took six years of talking between rostenkowski into the near -- tip o'neill to get tax reform and 86. it took a year of transition to
get in place. there's a major effort. there is no trust because mr. mcconnell has undercut the first day you select to and continues to do it any stretch of the open in today's press. without that kind of trust come you can't sit down because you have to trust somebody to say i'll put this on the table if you put that on the table and you begin to make the choices that have to be made to have tax reform. anyone who talks about tax reform is talking to some other place today because no one is going to do it in 15 minutes in the recent committee or finance committee will not happen until people start trusting one another. it's [inaudible] >> by her position as we need to
get out of sequester. it's bad for america. he's trying to do the best account the difficult situation, but the great thing is to not to sequester. congresswoman chu said it right. it is a failsafe because the supermajority assist and manage, somehow we ended up at this. we should not allow to go into effect. we should implement the balancing act. that day, everybody. thank you very much. >> and in his talks to their state universities for their state government and tax of up to sequester relaxes repair that's a whole country because until you note the federal government is going to do come you can't plan a state budget. so what we are doing here is screwing up 50 states around the country, social systems, and
the original series, first ladies, influencing and manage. interesting influence on the president, reduce at the white house historical association. season one begins february 18 at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> the urban institute hosted a discussion about the history of the income taxed our proposal to change or replace it. urban institute fellow howard gleckman moderates this 90 minute discussion. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everybody. welcome to the urban institute first to say whatever you celebrate the 100th anniversary of the income taxed.
my name is howard gleckman, editor of the blog tax vox and moderator for today's program. 100 years ago today, delaware became the 36th state to ratify the 16th amendment to the constitution, creating the modern income tax, which wasn't the first income tax. we had one of the civil war, but this is more or less in the constitution and the admin contact severson. it is a tax they love to hate. in a hundred years it's gone from a rich man taxi top rated 7% to today's not tax somewhere north of 40 sign. to paraphrase winston churchill can we seem to think is the worst possible tax except for all the others. to discuss the past, present and future of the income tax and therefore the nation's top tax experts. to my far right, joe thorndike,
a prolific author. their fair share, taxing the rich and the age of 50 are just out today and i have a copy right here published by the institute press. james steuerle has written extensively about tax policy including contemporary u.s. tax policy, but he is written about it and lift it. he was one of the godfathers of a beginning reform act of 1986, what are the key moments in income tax. he was the urban institute. eric toder has been intimately involved in the treasury and irs, codirector of the tax policy center. finally, nina olsen is taxpayer advocate where she scarcely represents those who pay taxes and those of us who must battle against the growing complexities
of modern revenue code. just a week or so ago combining this up this released a report to see the tax code from a document to describe the great candor and some things we can do about it. a service show is going to give us a brief history of the income tax. before he starts, but they let you know after it are present tatian, will give everybody an opportunity to ask questions. for those of you watching at the spin of the web, in questions at public firstname.lastname@example.org. do i get it started? >> i'm glad to see a reasonable number of people here. i saw people at the worst possible job for a cocktail party because i say in the tax historian. it brings back the worst conversation he a 15 and it's incredibly boring for so many are currently sets the initial
impression. this year as i've been it lately and denmark, an important moment to recognize this is 100 years of struggling with a tax that everybody loves to hate. what's really striking to me as complaints are pretty much just as old and many of them with the exact same complaints yesterday. we've been caught in the convoluted night air. in 1815, one critic says it's so complicated that it's utterly impossible to understand it in the name and ashes two years of complexity piled out. americans have caught the tax intrusive, unfair and even un-american come about the complaining has done little to slow its growth. the story of the income tax in the united states is one of steady growth more or less and
at some point. quick growth. if we hit the tax so much, why is it that increases steadily at every proposal to replace it has been considered and rejected over the years and it's been many proposals? the answer to the puzzle is twofold. the income tax does two things really quite well. perhaps most racist money quite well. it turned out not exactly by accident that this is a great way for the federal government to raise money quickly and was relatively easy to scale up. just as important in the long run is a tax is comforted with notions of fairness as americans have we sat through politics. ..
>> the exemption is cut by one-third and another war comes along and works more dramatic change. bit transforms of class tax to the mastax. those that filed increased tenfold up at 43 million in 1945. it was observed the income-tax change the code from overalls because so many working-class paid the tax there previously reserved just for rich people. the transformation was important for two reasons. first, it made the federal income tax the single source of the largest revenue.
that happened in the thirties when it surpassed excise taxes we used to raise half of federal revenue by taxing consumer goods like alcohol and tobacco but if the 40's changed at once and for all in the never looked back it is the pillar of the tax system but the '40's changed the relationship and for many americans through the 40's the only daily contact the people ever had was the post office. it seems that not just on april 15 but we start to see the hand of the federal government in our lives. that shows the way people thought about their government.
government, as social security and at the same time it is much clearer. but then they would hold on to the ridiculously high rates. of the despite the fact is a republican president and a republican congress. and he is more interested in debt retirement in the short run. those who are fans of raising the tax rates will point* back to the '50s and say here is in an era of pretty good growth, not great but we have really high tax rates so those
don't matter to growth. but i will do little bit to say that is true but effective tax rates paying steadily to the '50s that policy makers figured out they could have high a statutory rates to carve out loopholes that would reduce the rates for most taxpayers by a quite a lot. so looking at the actual rates so that is the story of the '50s but declining actual tax burdens. those high tax rates did succumb to a democratic
administration when the kennedy administration past the big tax cut it brought the tax -- to operate from 70% down from about 90% not as much as they wanted to say but lawmakers were intrenched in the system to provide preferences. i think that is the unholy compromise but at that time to lower their rates and broaden the base but despite the lower rates of base broadening there is the general decline, the sense it does not serve the fairness goal. was saying the fairness
access of politics has two elements one, those guys should be paying more we want it more progressive to move the burden further up the scale. three of their kind of fairness is those guys are getting away with murder. it has been a constant of policy and franklin roosevelt made use of debt and every president since them. so that started to pick up steam in the '60s and also of 1969 when the treasury says 100 are not paying tax and where the amt starts and that starts the stage for
income-tax reform. >> with that transition, a eugene steuerle. >> if the kid do 65 years i have eight minutes and 35 years. off tin divided the postwar era for ec finance. if you look emerald or two, 1981 almost every major tax act, there is one exception that was a tax cut as well. we had bracket keep but taxes went up almost as much as they were going to be
lowered. they went up mainly because of the bracket as the income went up with inflation in the late '70s. then we have the fiscal straitjacket era because every major initiative that we decided how to get the budget in order, we engage in tax reform and also in 83 expanding the tax base, almost every initiative n set to be the takeaway side then me go into the budget as a whole, we will give money away tadema's spending
increase, tax cuts we will do little enough to identify. you might wonder how does this work out? the balance sheet has to be met but it also tells us that it is mainly economic growth to provide additional revenue. so the economy is approximately doubled in size for a saw revenues will approximately double. if we look a few percentage points up for dinner and the tax rate it is not the revenue but the growth provides the money. with its flexibility allows congress to operate on the
revenue side. what happens with budget tightening with today's so much has been given away even revenue growth shows the broad history of what goes on during this period with the commitments from the past and that affects the tax policy from this period. i don't want to spend too much time but looking at the tax reform act of 86 people post this as a model for today. 81 is the last of the major giveaways. most people think it defines the reagan administration
but they said one more tax cuts with spending increase one more item on the giveaway side but then did is take away. note and also secured do reform we said we would try something revenue neutral in it is not about shifting income we would not change the size of government that what it does very uniquely is it takes off the table the two major items that congress will focus all of its attention. so it is heard for those people who worry about simplicity or equal
circumstances, efficiency, f or those issues come to the fore when you can some extent have a big debate over size of government. that allow the tax reform of 86 to happen. if you are older you remember we had a growing amounts of tax shelters, doctors, lawyers shelters, doctors, lawyers, professionals high income people who were finding ways to partnerships to invest to yield enormous income also partially with interest rates and depreciation schedules the income was accrued over here begetting deductions.
it was a great compromise to get rid of the shelters and getting people to hire and exchange for lower rates. also going back to the inflationary period, it had moved many of the pork. but it also led to a very high increase in the taxes paid by a families with children with the erosion of personal exemption. here is another great liberal conservative compromise. but here is one with social conservatives to unite with liberals that led to another compromise.
people say why can't members of congress get along today as they must have done in the '80s? they don't remember '80s as well as those who lived through it. when reagan else you wanted the tax reform states congress burst out in laughter and democrats so distrusted -- distrusted him they did not even expect it to come out of treasury. so it started with a great sense but they found through proposals with principles that appeal to both sides they could find common agreement. now going to the current period no president has been interested in traditional tax reform toots' treat people equally have and get the money out of the tax
code we have gone through 2230 years of debate of the top tax rate 40%, 20 percent and that debate has dominated the public. both parties have enacted new tax provisions that add to the expenditures so we have very little interest in most tax debates are budget debates and to what extent do you want this? but this with the era of said giveaway side of the budget with the great recession, and entitlements that is spending and automatic, starting to
dominate the budget, and so many things that have come together we have not quite figured out now i will let nina olson tell us how we will solve the problem then turn the floor over to eric toder for the major debate of consumption versus income taxes. >> as you heard i'm sure you know, the income tax is the dominant way we raise revenue in the united states at the federal level. however there always has been substantial opposition so it is my job to talk about that. tax experts have debated the right basis for imposing tax on consumption or income. the old debate beginning in the '70s, they were throwing
academic support with the consumption tax and some economists became a dominant point* of view. i will discuss the reasons for that and some other reasons why that might have been a bad idea and why it hasn't happened. we all look at retail sales taxes to say that is what it is but it is much more than that. it will use it to spend money or save its. so the consumption tax is just the savings tear and simple but there are lots of ways to do that. there is not just one
consumption tax, there are many. the four major ones, retail sales tax, you are familiar with from the state practice , a tax on the consumption when people buy goods, collected from businesses, retailers. the more common version is used in australia, new zealand and europe and 150 countries, canada and japan value-added tax that is a retail sales tax but collected at each stage of production. so the value is added by a each stage. those are collected only from businesses. the third version is partly from business and partly from household called the flat tax simply value-added
but instead of collecting on all value, the businesses get the deduction for wages paid in the employee's pay the tax on the wages they received. some say that is exactly the same a value-added except for collection, that is a popular version promoted in the united states. the final version there is a version called the xx the had graduated rates and earnings. and you could collect from all households with personal income tax to report all income take any amount borrowed and deduct any put into savings instead up of adding waistband look at your income and subtract
your net savings that is the tax base. capital expenditures are deductible for all of these for businesses. there is a long history was for these, david hume favor of consumption tax on the ground it is voluntary. you really didn't have to spend the money you could avoid them if you wanted to. alexander hamilton was similar he favored consumption taxes because they could not be raised at that level. and also probably had another issue that disappeared but famous proponents were american and englishmen irving fisher was a foremost economist and
favored a spinning's tax and wrote the book 1942 but the secretary treasury proposed such attacks in 1942 and was laughed out of consideration but he was a big proponent then there was a left-wing economist who wrote a book in 1955, interestingly enough from the right to it was exempt savings but from the left it was a way to get at the inherited wealth wealth, they would be taxed when they spend it down. so now we go on to more
modern proposals starting in the '70s, 1976 the treasury put out a tax reform proposal, their word to model taxes but the author of the study david bradford was basically pushing for the consumption tax idea. and the proposal got a lot of attention that was basically an individual tax with the deduction for savings a rethink of the economist favor that but the harvard professor also was an advocate of the consumption tax. this resurface later in a proposal in the 1990's
called the usa tax, universal savings account that my colleagues helped to design the. and another tax from a professor at stanford published 1982 not an original idea with them but came from milton friedman were in his book keas a chapter on the ideal income-tax described is actually the flat tax. this is picked up by house majority leader dick armey and candidate steve forbes in the '90s and again it did not go anywhere. then convinces idea may not work he traduced the flat
tax was graduated rates and that is still popular from the american enterprise institute. that idea is still around also. the fair tax, retail sales tax, and then there is an interesting plan which is the value-added tax to collect most of the revenue but then must have a higher exemption level much like the original income tax of 1913 from world war ii. why do people advocate consumption tax? some say it is economic growth and competitiveness because you removed the tax with a return for savings and investment. competitiveness, and did
exams exports with the business tax variety. the fairness issues they were the ones that were stressed that the idea of fairness consumption tax better measures income to pay over somebody's life time in contrast where people with the same present value of lifetime income and it discriminates against people who discriminate later in life the earnings pattern are such they earned earlier in life and have to say if more to smooth out the consumption. that if you don't have the
income tax is not have to worry about the measurement of capital and come. with inflation and -- inflation adjustment and so forth. there are a number of reasons why people were concerned about these approaches. one was about fairness certainly collected from businesses was impossible to make them progressive. and then there was a concern if they could get the rate high enough to compensate for the fact you were exempting savings. there were concerns how you could administer them and also about transition issues going from one tax to another.
for these reasons, and other political reasons, these have never happened and friends of the conservative movement worried about the value added tax being a money machine with the same worry from alexander hamilton and the income-tax, of any tax is a money machine. the future, we've run into long-term budget problems the current income tax may not be up to the tester raise sufficient revenues. have written a lot about tax expenditures. i am not optimistic they can be cut that much. globalization makes it much harder to tax investment income and as we look around the world many countries
rely on consumption task -- tax so to replace with a consumption tax has failed to do think we really need to think seriously about rebalancing the system and raising more revenue from consumption than we currently do. >> eugene steuerle said i was of all the problems some recommendation is everybody read my annual report to congress and everything in it and we will be fine and that is the solution. [laughter] but i am here today to talk about the impact of all of these changes with the internal revenue code and before the mid 1990's before you wrote us a check to pay taxes you wrote i